AngelLestat

Yeah, another day I will play a bit with the math of roche limit to find the best example on proxity, density, atmosphere and gravity. Not sure what is the conclusion of Relathon because I did a quick read. Where the 1.26 comes? But I guess is possible, There are many different links in internet with examples with different configuations, even with 2 earths at 2.4 radius of distance, they can share an atmosphere due the roche lobes. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2009-05/1242825020.As.r.html They found a binary star like that: http://phys.org/news/2009-12-imaging-young-binary.html I imagine that Forward did many calculations before write his novel Rocheworlds, the same as any hard science fiction writer. About 2 planets sharing an atmosphere.. in that case Larry Nivel was beyond that in his book "The Smoke Ring" https://vimeo.com/40676197 http://www.larryniven.net/physics/img27.shtml But yeah, many incredible things may be possible in the universe if you match all the exact conditions that you need, the universe is so big, that any small chance becomes reality.

Not.. because the surface is behind a big greenhouse effect, if venus atmosphere would be releasing so much heat to space as its surface temperature, then it will have an input of 650 w/m2 and a output of 16000 w/m2. Something that cant happens. Yeah you can make an anology between heat conductive transfer and electrical circuits, the math is the same, but your hypothesis is wrong. You just need to radiate the same energy you receive. Not sure if I follow you, there is not possible case (except for this particular case) where you will have higher temperature at higher height than the surface. You can ignore the radiation than goes down because it will bounce up again. Lets make an example: your incomming radiation is 300w/m2, so it should out 300w/m2 to find equilibrium. Using: Your average temperature should be 270 k (-6 celcius degree) So is the average atmosphere height from top to certain height, where your thermal mass sum is 270k. If this will be the venus case, it will be aprox from 58km height to top height. I may be wrong.. is the first time I think in this, and I may oversimplifying this problem. Yeah you might right, but as I said.. I dont know.. But you should stop thinking in day time and night time.. You should always think in average.. Because all climate change graph and energy budget graph takes into account average temperatures and average power by w/m2. THat is why when scientist said that X planet should be -33 degrees colder that it is without greenhouse effect, the fact that has or not atmosphere should not matter much. The thermometer should have the same sea temperature if it wants to radiate the same amount than receives. Also the thermometer is so small, than the tempearature difference between the sea side and space side does not matter.

It may be possible for tidal locked planets, but this condition will not last much time, they lose a lot of kinetic energy. I guess some will said that the planets will tear apart, but I think it should be a case where this is possible. PD: rocheworld, yeah good book, they use beamed sail, forward was the first who come out with that idea.

You have 4 planets < 20 light years radius. We put a name to stars only when they are important for some reason. The same will happen with planets, you said I am not adding nothing, but in fact I am adding common sense. Each star may have an average of 4 planets (being pessimistic). This is a trend that would not last, soon they will find planets faster that they can name it, and even for the planets that will renamed, its code name will be more popular.

Yeah, that will be correct. Of course co2 does not block all the IR wavelenght, and if it does, it will be at big concentrations or big distances. Yeah, not sure if called a limit, but yes.. So the second factor here would be the height and density of the atmosphere. mmm, is late so not sure if my brain works fine, but if the greenhouse effect already reach an equilibrium between the energy received and the energy released, then it means those radiations are equal. But they are equal because the atmosphere heat up a lot more until reach its equilibrium. And that would happen when the last atmosphere layer; atmosphere from certain height to top, which average temperature is equal to the average surface temperature it will need to emit the same radiation back to space. Yeah the effect is kinda unknown yet, but some of the conditions might be quite different than Venus starting by radiation. I dont know, extra water will produce clouds, and depending its height, those clouds are ice which may counter the greenhouse effect of water. Maybe it takes much time that process, and only 1 meteorite or a big eruptions in that period, may cover the sky with dust and block enoght sunlight to reset the climate. Maybe someone knows.. I never search that in deep. We dont know what might be the co2 trigger in those times, co2 only last 30 years, maybe something trigger but before the temperature rise enoght, the amount of co2 decay. yeah, somebody should search for that to see if they find something new.But the possibilities are many, from life cycles, ocean cycles and who knows.. Yeah, but we were talking about the -33 degrees that earth should have without greenhouse. If you have a planet with sea and you dont have atmosphere (lets pretend the water remains liquid XD), if you place a thermometer 1 to 10 meters above the sea even in the night side, then it will have the same temperature than the sea, because it receives heat by radiation. So I imagine that you imagine the atmosphere helps in keep us warm when the sun will stop bright. That is true with real atmospheres, but with this hypotetical atmosphere it will not help much. Sand is a thermal insulator, animal dig in the sand during day to escape from the heat, because heat only reach few centimeters. That is the opposite to water, which is a good thermal conductor and sun light can reach several meters. So when the night fall, the little heat trapped in sand is released in a short time, that is the first or second main effect of why deserts are cold on night. Yeah I agree. (I guess), is kinda late here I will read it again tomorrow.

And? you will find more planets (from those who nobody cares because they are at ludicrus distances, biggers than earth and closers to their stars) in this galaxy than names for them... If you take into account all names in all cultures and history, it will not be enoght.. And the question is ... why for? We never will go to visit them. That is why stars or galaxy had also code+number names, the same for many asteroids. If we found a planet in our neighborhood <20 light years, then it worth the name.

Ok in this case it seems that the cost production of REBCO superconductors become cost efficient in these last 2 years, which in that case my point is not so significant. But many times where these long term projects start and they know it would take at least 10 years, they never make predictions on the status of new technologies and the year of arrival, even if the predictions points to 1 year, and you dont need to take that step after 5 years into the development. Many times designers not even use the last technology avariable just because the price is still high (but dropping) or because they are conservatives. If you need to plan a businees case for sats in space that you will be able to launch 10 years from now. You will use the current launch cost or you will apply the cost drop predictions taken into account that spacex is very close to achieve 1st stage recovery? - - - Updated - - - The same orion, but they choose to use the oldest technology avariable in almost all, without any clear goal in the design.

That is what I always say... if they take a lot of time with a construction without trying to identify the time release for new technology to include it in the design, then it will be a waste of money because technology will keep going and find a better way to solve a problem. I am talking about ITER.

I found a name for all of them: TBAHDPWNC 000001 to 999999 That big and hot distant planet who nobody cares

In your last conclusion, how do you explain the points 3, 4 and 5 that you made then? If you increase the co2 values the temperature increase, not because that band was already absorbed it means would not be absorbed again after reemmited by another co2 molecule. You would not be able to explain venus temperature with that conclusion. How many times that radiation bounce on earth, and how many times bounce on venus? Of course on earth the temperature increase is not severe by a small change on co2, but it triggers a chain event releasing more greenhouse gases plus more water. Not sure what would be the reflective (albedo) effect on clouds due more water on the atmosphere. I mistake in my first post to add the rotation as it were an effect that can change the outcome, is not. The rotation speed does not change the average temperature that the planet would have at certain distance from the sun. Not sure, I just said that because the moon data was wrong and the arguments were not carefull enoght. I am not an expert either, I just try to use my common sense to discriminate between sources. Also is a good practice to see the two sides of the coin in all topics, like arguments from deniers. Is not about thermal mass, If you have a big ocean which add an incredible amount of thermal mass (more than any atmosphere), your average temperature would be the same, because if not, it means you are releasing more heat that the one you receive, which it is absurd. The only it changes is that your night/day side temperatures will be closer to the average. Now remember that in the example I give, the atmosphere would be from a single gas element which would not absorb almost nothing of IR, without changing much the albedo either, something very hard to find. But in that hipothetical case, the radiation would act like if there was nothing there. So you have conductive and convective heat transfer between the surface and the gas (which is not much), and this gas will add just a bit amount of thermal mass. But well, now I am in doubt what would happen by the radiation release by this gas in its same wavelenght absortion spectrum, which it will bounce against other molecures of this same gas, which in theory should increase a bit the surface temperature, but just a bit. And the purpose of this mind experiment is just isolate cause and effects.

Same, but I did some "english" corrections just before you reply me. After I post it for first time I realize how many english mistakes I had, so try to read it again. It´s just a normal site, its not managed by any organization, you may find it first in your searchs because that site is ready to deal with keyword usually made by people who try to find counter arguments against climate change. (is a clever idea, but they need better data and arguments) But it does not mean is the best site to look for real data.. In fact the moon temperatures are also wrong. Lets make an exercise, imagine that the moon has the same material than earth in all its surface. This mean the same albedo and thermal mass. If they rotate at the same speed then both would have the same average temperatures. By average I mean in each location of the whole sphere over the whole day. Now.. lets add an atmosphere to one of them (I guess the pressure does not matter if they have not greenhouse gases, which is hard because all gases trap a little bit of IR always), then in theory they should have the same average temperature even if now one has an atmosphere. In fact the moon has 123 C on the day side and minus 153 C at the night side. Which is close to those -33 degree (earth average temperature= 16c) that the earth should have without greenhouse gases. And if we add the albedo of the moon, then it has more sense.

Ok, is not perfect explain there but their point is that if you would not have greenhouse gases, all the heat radiated by the earth on night would escape right away without bounce in the atmosphere. Of course there is other effect as the thermal mass of oceans which does not counteract this argument, but it will be hard to explain to a newbie if it will be included. That would be the average temperature... cold side and warm side.If you add 1 bar of atmosphere without greenhouse gases the average temperature would be the same, only that more limited because it helps to distribute the heat (by convection)... thermal mass. ??? The only they mention there is that they measure 340 w/m2 reaching the earth, and 339 w/m2 leaving it... Which is the prove that due the incresing co2 levels, more heat is being trapped. it does not said that.. They said that they are sure is due co2 because the radiation comming from earth has missing that exact waveleght signature, the one blocked by co2. (not all IR is blocked by co2, just to clarify)

in a coral reef or amazon.. if the goal is to find as many complex life forms as we can.

Are you all still waiting some kind of gratitude or honesty from WedgeAntilles? Since the begining, he was corrected on co2, energy processes and sources, jupiter potential energy and many other things, apparently he realized that was wrong because he is changing his words now; trying to find some kind of loophole in the coments to not accept the mistake.

Well this old concept used the air (inside the atmosphere) as proppelent converted into plasma by the laser. Not sure what happens with that idea, I imagine that should be many drawbacks, but the tests at low scale seems to work fine.

I dont see any problem with the analogy of greenhouses and the effect co2 or different long IR blockers gases, you dont need to know thermodynamics to understand that inside a greenhouse the temperature is higher than outside, and its because the light/heat can enter, but not all can escape .. The same that happens in the atmosphere. If it would be exactly the same with all its process, it would not be an analogy. They already know that.. they know to the perfection what is the effect of co2 or other greenhouse gases on the heat trapped, they know how much time co2 last in the atmosphere; the hard part, is follow that new heat trapped in all its different energy forms in all its possible locations. Is the same that the evolution theory, the process is know, now you need to find the evidence and path of each species family through time.

I would like to know more on the microwave choice vs laser. With laser you will need high accuracy but you lose less energy, another drawback is that the sky needs to be clear of clouds. Not sure what energy source can be easily converted into heat for the proppelent. They use air as proppelent mass in the begining?

The solid fuel was manufactured by your team? Not sure if there are exact formules in internet and how easy is to get the elements. Is kinda similar in looks to the fuel of the movie october sky?

Finally!! Thanks for the video.. perfect launch. Some surprise in the data collected? At what height you guess it had the max dynamic pressure?

I dont follow you... why you mean?

Yeah I know, I just wanted to throw a joke, something I can not always do in English About being wrong, yeah I am many times, I accept it if I notice, I dont see any shame in that. We learn in all discussions, being wrong or being right.. the outcome is always the same, we learn something new each time. We just need to be care to not spread our errors to others, because if nobody notice it, then we all leave that discussion being wrong and thinking that we know. Ok, I read again your last answer, now I understand better your question. Correct me if I am wrong, you think that only 1 glass is enoght to reflect all the low frequencies as IR, so 2 or more glass layers only work to improve the isolation by conductive heat but not to reflect extra IR? Transparent plastics or glass, depending its spectral characteristics, may block lets said a 10% of visible light and 60% of IR. Visible light also carry energy/heat, the difference that the red color carry more heat, and IR (which is invisible to our eyes) carry even more heat. So if we add many layers like the ones I mention in my example, taken the light blocked by the first layer, then the remaning light is blocked again by a 10% of visible light and a 60% of IR (so in theory is impossible to reach 100% light blocked not matter how many layers we add) Even if I add 15 layers, it will still reaching a big % of visible light and a small % of Infrared. That is why my experiment to put a thermometer inside many plastic layers with air between, is valid to reach high temperatures (maybe 90c to 150c) in the same way as Venus does. Here one example for different glass windows: you even bother to try to understand or check what arkie, peadar and I explain you? Yeah hot air rise.. You got that right, but why then temperature decrease if altitude increase? Because the air expand, to do it needs to push the other air around, it needs energy so release heat. Its gaining potential energy, so it lose heat and kinetic, when goes down, it lose potential energy and gains heat. But pressure or gravity by it self is not a source of energy/heat. And the atmosphere does not escape to space, it has a ceiling limited by gravity! The only heat that goes out is radiation. Again.. try to speak with property.. Pressure in this case is not a source of energy, neither gravity. The only energy here is potential energy. Once the gas shrinks, produce heat, but never will expand again, never. This process takes time because when it shrinks, produce heat, this produce a counter force which stop the shrinks, until this heat is radiated to space, then it shrinks again. Ok.. hold that thought then.. lets see the opinion of your thermodynamics teacher. ... but the incomming radiation from the sun has not the same spectrum than when bounce on the ground or against the atmosphere. When it bounce does it at long wave IR, when it comes from the sun does it with UV, Visible light and high IR frequencies. Which greenhouse gases are not very good blocking... But when it tries to go out with a longer wave, then it gets blocked. Because that is what a greenhouse gas does! It block low IR frequencies.. Take a look to the venus energy budget graphic, 16000w/m2 leaves the ground, and only 163 w/m2 goes out. But from the incoming sun radiation, from 653 w/m2. 163 achieve to pass, which mostly is bloqued by sulfuric acid, not greenhouse gases. So if you were right, from those 653 w/m2, only 0.1 would achieve to pass. see also my answer to arkie, it will help you to understand.

I called rover because the chip was designed for this vehicle: Of course in my idea would not be a rover. That is a good design but you need a smooth terrain, venera 10 show that the terrain is very smooth, but venera9 show a very different case: Now I read that the sail rover will have an emergency small ballon that will inflate (to float) in case is stuck. I guess the sail rover has electric motor in their 2 back wheels, which can use it as generators when it moves with the sail. But about include PV or RTG, doesn´t looks as the most efficient way to achieve the mission. About a "submarine" to explore venus from 50km layer to surface... is hard but possible. You need to allow the ballon contract and expand a lot. Different fluids as water or amoniac can help to passive height control, because they boil at different temperatures and you may keep the desired pressure inside to counter the outside pressure using the venus heat. The good of this approach, that you dont need cooling device, if your temperature start to reach the chip, then the prove rise height and cool it. But it will be much easier to make a airship that can float between 5 km to surface. The only problem is how you generate energy? If you dont have an anchor, you cant generate energy from the wind. If we have stones is easy to desing an anchor, but if the soil is like in the first picture, then we are in trouble. The focus point of that energy in the ground will be very large (5 km diameter), so you are wasting a lot of energy. Is the same thing we are talking about. But look how much extra mass you need to add a RTG... it really worth it? yeah, is a good point, but it depends on your heat insulation, also if your heat insultation is good, then you dont need to extract much heat. But not sure the efficiency to extract heat from a 250c source to a 450c It can be rigid, using tantalum paint.With a dirigible shape which center cilinders expand or contract until form an ellipsoid. I guess we can have a better alternative to the sail rover, I have some ideas how to solve mostly all issues, but not sure yet the anchor issue to extract energy from the wind.

I guess I can do it too, but how to be sure? I never wrong.. XD With air in the middle?

I think they have some kind of sense. It gets 653w/m2 From that, 490 is reflective due So2 clouds, then we have 163 remaning, which 146 is absobed by the atmosphere and 17 by the ground. Then we have a close loop of 16583 w/m2 (earth close loop is 314w/m2 aprox), which is responsible of the higher temperatures. The surface does not reflect radiation (maybe it does, but is included in the close loop, or maybe is negligible) There is not thermals, this has sense because it only reach 17w/m2 to the surface, but again, thermals may be represented as the 16000 loop (just because is easier represent all by radiation). Evapo transpiration is negligible, because the climate is very dry. From the loop, only 17 w/m2 escape.. this is obvious because is the amount that reach the surface. Then the atmosphere radiate 163 w/m2 to the space, which is the result of 17+146, so that is the energy equilibrium. Yeah, but is more easy to understand all just using 1 type of energy transfer, also they also absorb radiation from the surrounding atmosphere. Yeah, its similar, the glass acts as co2 layer and radiactive emitter to the space, which it gets its energy from convective, conduction and radiation. Yeah it helps, what I mean is that it is not enough to draw conclusions just from that data, they should be use as complementary info; nothing more.

Here there is a link: http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt5.html